Reasons Have to Be Enough

I have a mixture of thoughts "mixing around" in my head, that don't really "come together" coherently. So, this post may sound a little more rambling than the average. :)

Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.

But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?

Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.

This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".

But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.

Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.

Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.

So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.

Reasons Have to Be Enough.

Thinking About the Implications of Nationalism and Globalism

I have been thinking about how we have come to the point we are...

If one is politically progressive, then, our revolution was "right" because of "taxation without representation", but wrong according to conservatives, such as van Prinster, as it was "modeled after the French Revolution. And, after all, Romans tells us to submit to the governing authorities..

The Puritans came because of purification of the Church of England and felt that they could set up "god's kingdom" in a brave new land.

But, as people moved away from their settlements, and "set up house", their "interests" became defined around those settlements. For the South, the interests was the land, and those who worked the land, the slaves. Scriptures affirmed that slavery was "right".

But, the political progressives did not view slaves as property, as slaves were human beings. The great debate and eventual "Civil War" was fought over the issue of slavery. The Civil War ended with the South's defeat and the furtherance of a centralization of government, because States ceased to have the right to slave ownership. Southern States were hindered from pursuing their "own interests" for the interest of "human rights".

The issue of globalization is similar in intent. Nations have not been "centralized". There has been talk of centralization under the U.N. and for "human rights". In 2005 there was a discussion about the issues at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The discussion was about "peace", nation development, etc. (Human rights, in general).

The question that disturbs me is; "even though the North and South had different interests in the slave issue during our nation's Civil War, both sides had an interest in the nation, as a whole. With globalization, culture becomes a big obstacle. Culture holds the values of a society and is not easily "given up", as it brings identity.

How are we to seek a unified "globe" when diversity is so profound? And how do we go about meeting such different interests? How do we agree with those who do not believe or adhere to the "rule of law"? And what about cultures that define deference to the "rule of law" differently? And how can we come to agreement about what is in the best interest of everyone in international law?

Case in point: Do all humans deserve equality under law, irregardless of their "intent" to undermine another governement? Then, human rights are universal and irrespective of person or value. But, are there distinctions, like we have in our laws, of intent, etc.? If so, then how are we to define intent, when intent to one culture would be "right or lawful" and to another it would be counted as "wrong or unlawful"?

There is much to be considered and it has nothing to do with "obedience to god", but what is best for "world affairs"?

Balance of Power in American Government

I was thinking the other morning about the recent abuses of power in our government.

Bush used the executive branch to subvert the judicial branch in carrying out or not carrying out the law (depending on how one interprets the law).The judicial branch is to interpret law and render it justness in specific cases.

At Guatanomo Bay, it was unclear what the law required as to "international law" and human rights issues versus our national security and our own laws concerning jurisprudence. And it seemd as if Bush didn't care what the courts would say about it. All being said, most think that irregardless of "standing", these prisoners deserved humane treatment. But, in more discussion of this issue, more became concerned about humane treatment when it came to other issues of "investigation" and national security. These are not easily decided, as they cross the divide over humanity's "right", irregardless of citizenship, or whether one's own right as a nation deserves protection and the "criminal" has given up his "right" of protection under the law. Even in our everyday world, our country demands at arrest the criminal to be "read his rights" to defense, etc. But, is this only a "citizen's right"? Immigration policy has been discussed in this domain. Where do the requirements of justice over-ride one's duty to country? And where does duty to country actualize justice?

We cannot apply justice where we do not live. We can theorize about how justice would behave, but we cannot be just in such situations unless we are the lawyers in international courts. But, justice does demand a underlying frame, which is in our Constitution.

On the other hand, the recent "bail out money" has implications also about our government's balance of power to the executive branch in this adminstration. Congress represents the legislative branch where laws are made or determined in application. Congress must understand their responsibility to the public in the way they handle the public's monies. Certian ideologies do not distinguish very largely between the public and private domains in this area. These think of public monies as "one big pot" where we all can vie for public monies. These are the ones who sometimes mis-use the system in their greedy desire for "hand-outs".

Public monies come from private hands that have worked hard and long hours to give back to their government for its protection. Those who do not look on these hard-working people as anything but pinions to be a useful means of enslavement to the government's outrageous appetite have no regard for the individual worker, whether professional or blue collar.

It is too easy for government to be looked upon as a "nanny state' where it soon becomes a "co-depedent"state, where the State becomes the "Hero" and those in government use their positions to enlarge their own lives.

Abuse of power is only the result of unaccountability to the public or those that are "paying the bills". Congress should remain balance between our two party system and allow both voices a hearing in Congressional chambers. Otherwise, we are doomed to be a One Party State, under a One Party Dictator.

Limitations

Yesterday, while interacting with someone on another blog, it was pointed out that we have limitations. While I have never doubted that all of us do have limitations, what do these limitations mean?

The psychologist would say that we have limitations of gifting, while the anthropologist would say that our limitation is context. The lawyer would understand the limitation of law, while the politician doesn't grasp any limitation whatsoever!

Individuals are born with certain gifts in understanding, intellectual capacity, and interests. These giftings are only limited by a lack of development.

The anthropologist would understand that our cultural values and understanding of life vis a vis religion will be different. The individual is limited within his scope of context, but this limitation can be overcome. A enlarged world can happen through education, exposure to other cultures, etc.

The rule of law is an important value in the West. It has made our country great because it is the basis of our governing and government. The Law defines what is 'right and wrong" behavior in relationships, whether it be in business transactions, divorce settlements, or settlement of estates. Most of our laws are based on economic boundaries that define what is considered justice.

But, what happens in countries that do not value law? Terrorists or those whose cultures do not allow equality under law, as their cultural values differ from ours, whether through religious prejuidice, or a "saving face" norm, these people cannot be trusted in the same way as Western cultures. How are we to do business withe these cultures? If one believes that only the "in group" is privy for special rights or priviledge because others are infidels, or whether the culture does not allow the acknowledgment of wrong, because of the "loss of face"....These are challenging in our global climate of economic exchange...

The politician, though, is only interested in getting the job, getting elected, appealing to the masses, and being ambiguous. Ambuguity is an important attribute for a politician for then, people can project what they value the most in a form of rhetoric that is broad enough for their view to "fit". The astute politician is a "man for all people", as he represents many and various views. He knows how to manipulate the press and the people for his own advantage, so that he can maintain his public office. Honesty would be a refreshing change in the public square.

Limitations are what we place upon our own life in a free society, either through our own "smallness", or allowing another his overindulgent appetite for what we have. Limitations then, become a matter of "right relationship", where another needs to recognize what has happened and make amends. Justice is about right relationship and right relationship is about law. And law is what makes for peace.

Political Meets Moral

Political systems work in the real world where lives are really impacted for good or ill. In the past, much suffering has resulted from ethnocentrism. Ethnic cleansing has a rough history, but is real policy in some segments of political thinking...

Governments are ruled by an elite. Elitism is not meant as a derogatory label, unless the elite have a moral depravity that hinders their vision of inclusion. But, where elite meets power, with no accountablity, there is self-interest, at the costs of others and much damage to all. Our nation does not allow such power, at least in theory, and it has recently illustrated our ideals of inclusion in our president's election.

The Church has understood itself through an ethnocentric understanding. Besides understanding Jesus, as the Jewish Messiah, she has used other exclusive terms to bring about a "separatist" mentality, i.e. "the remnant", "the chosen", "the called", "the elect", "the Bride of Christ", "the Chosen Nation", "God's people", etc., etc.

This ethnocentric orientation has wrought on its heels many times, an attitude of priviledge, or superiority. I find that this is nothing less than ego managment, which is nothing more than self-agrandizement.

Obama's presidency means that we ALL are a people, which does not limit one's understanding to "saved and unsaved", but human. Morality means that all of us are chosen. All of us are important, and All of us need the right to be human, which is what human rights and international law is all about.

A Concern for America's Openness

There has been much talk about the closing of Guatanomo Bay. Last night I watched the press question the press secretary about where these people were to go and what they were to do. He really had no specific answers, which I wonder about.

Is it wise to release these people without investigating what to do with them? Does international law not protect us and them in giving them the right to trial? Is there to be a trial? I don't mean to cast a dark cloud over the closure, but I am questioning why there would not be some checks and balances....